Non-state Actors in the International Climate Change Regulatory Framework

Global climate governance is multilateral and involves both state and non-state actors. This study sets to identify the ways in which non-state actors can access and participate in the international climate change regime under the UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement and to evaluate how they can influence law-making processes and outcomes under the agreements. The study further provides recommendations on how the involvement of non-state actors can be improved under the agreements. The study emphasizes that under the UNFCCC, non-state actors have an important role in acting as intermediaries under the orchestration governance model and in participating to the Conference of Parties and under the Paris Agreement, by exerting influence on state’s nationally determined contributions. The study suggests that the role of non-state actors in formulating nationally determined contributions and in participating to the Conference of Parties should be further formalised and that the NAZCA portal should be improved.

Proposed Regulation of Third-Party Funding in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Third-party litigation funding is increasingly used to finance legal claims in investor-state dispute settlement, with financiers funding investor claims against sovereign states in exchange for a share of potentially substantial compensation rendered in eventual arbitral awards. A chiefly unregulated phenomenon, third-party funding has been perceived especially controversial in the context of the investment arbitration regime, a system some allege is already ingrained with inequities. Third-party funding raises numerous policy questions, such as conflicts of interests, disclosure, costs of the proceedings, and even the entire permissibility of the practice in investor-state dispute settlement. This review raises various issues and concerns related to third-party funding in investor-state dispute settlement and presents the regulatory efforts and criticism thereof with regards to the reform of rules of both the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Selective Fiscal Measures and the Definition of the Relevant Reference Framework in the Light of Cases C‑106/09 P, Commission v Gibraltar and C‑203/16 P, Heitkamp BauHolding v Commission

This article examines fiscal State aids and the selectivity condition. Assessing the selectivity is relatively complex in tax matters since it involves the analysis of the general tax system in which the regime under review applies. The focus of this article is on the selectivity analysis and the analysis of the general tax system i.e. the determination of the relevant reference framework. The definition of the relevant reference framework is still open to various interpretations despite the fact that the European Court of Justice has examined selectivity issues in several cases in the 2000s. The Gibraltar judgement has materially broadened the interpretation of the selectivity condition and the application of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Heitkamp BauHolding judgment confirms the interpretation adopted in the Gibraltar judgement, but also defines the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU in more detail. Yet the offset of the selectivity assessment i.e. the determination of the relevant reference system is still receptive to various interpretations.

ICO rahoituskeinona

ICO on lohkoketjuteknologiaan perustuva rahoituskeino, joka toteutetaan laskemalla liikkeelle lohkoketjuun kytketty instrumentti eli token. Tokeneihin voidaan lohkoketjuteknologian joustavuuden vuoksi kytkeä useita erilaisia ominaisuuksia, kuten osakkeille tyypillisiä ääni- ja omistusoikeuksia tai hyödykkeille tyypillisiä osto- ja käyttöoikeuksia. Tämä artikkeli tarkasteleekin ICO:ja ilmiönä hyödyke- ja sijoitusmuotoisen joukkorahoituksen rajapinnassa, joka on oikeudellisesti ratkaisevassa asemassa, sillä hyödykemuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan kuluttajansuojalainsäädäntöä ja kauppalakia siinä missä sijoitusmuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan rahoitusmarkkinasääntelyä, kuten joukkorahoituslakia ja arvopaperimarkkinalakia. Artikkelissa arvioidaan tokeneita erityisesti suhteessa arvopaperimarkkinaoikeudelliseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen ja havaitaan sijoitusmuotoisten tokenien täyttävän siirtokelpoisen arvopaperin määritelmän. Lisäksi artikkelissa nostetaan esille hyödykemuotoisiin tokeneihin liittyviä ongelmakohtia ja arvioidaan mahdollisuuksia näiden ongelmakohtien paikkaamiseen nykylainsäädännön puitteissa. Voimakkaasti EU-oikeuteen pohjautuvan tarkastelun ohella artikkeli nostaa esille kotimaiseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen liittyviä näkökohtia ja sisältää lyhyen katsauksen Yhdysvalloissa käytyyn aihepiiriä koskevaan keskusteluun.